The SitePoint Forums have moved.

You can now find them here.
This forum is now closed to new posts, but you can browse existing content.
You can find out more information about the move and how to open a new account (if necessary) here.
If you get stuck you can get support by emailing forums@sitepoint.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

do i think it will work?

No. Honestly, one cannot trust the user to find this site and upgrade, simply based on the pure fact that some users are just not computer-savy (and that's putting it lightly). I would stick to the old compatability standards used by many web designers still.

but think of it....
a few more versions, and we'd still be coding using "margin-height" and hacks like that to "force" certain browsers to display something the "correct" way.

the more developed browsers get, the more advanced our coding is supposed to be, but right now it's still as messy and still non-standardised because people still use old browsers.

If the campaign works, if everyone supports it, and codes neat, up-to-date code, users will find themself lost in a world where they can't view pages correctly, and they will be prompted to upgrade.

look at dhtml. it isn't such a big hit as expected, and to me, neither will xml. we're going to have to wait a few browsers AFTER xml is added, for developers to safely use xml. this is all because we can't code with the latest technology, to make our pages backwards compatible. if this campaign works, each technology can be safely added to the page, without worrying about old browsers and incompatibility.

think of other attempts, separation of visual design and code structure, they aren't anywhere near totally success, only because lousy codings have to be made to cater for the older browsers. to upgrade is the only way.

It would be a good thing if everyone would stop using older browsers (3.x and below), but it won't happen. Not in the near future, at least.

Most people just don't care about which browser they're using, that's the reason why so many use IE 3.x, 4.x and 5.x: because it comes with the most used OS (Windows). The average user doesn't care about DHTML tricks etc.. If a page doesn't work for them, they don't blame the browser; they blame the creator of the site. You thus.

Therefore we'll have to wait 5-7 years till 4.x browsers have become extinct and you are no longer 'forced' to keep designing for those 'inferior' browsers.

Most web designers would probably love it if everyone had IE 5.x, but not everyone does. I think web designers who try to screw people with 4.x browsers are really just screwing themselves. I always make sure that people with 4.x broswers will be able to enjoy my site, and I try to make my sites look good in 3.x browsers as well (although that is not always possible).

Looking at my logs most people use IE 5.x, but many of my visitors are also using 4.x versions of both browsers and there are there are people using NS 3.x. I try to make sure my sites will look good in all of those browsers as much as I can...

And what about existing sites? Just wondering about those. Presumably big companies can afford to have theirs redone completely, but the smaller you are, the more hardship that is on you. So, existing ones need to go on working, it seems to me, at least for a long time to come.
And then...this bit is pure speculation - but the same people who don't care to make a site accessible to all browsers now, probably aren't going to adhere to standards in the future when some new technology that they want to use is developing, which will create the same situation all over again, and again, ad nauseum. I don't see any easy answers to this dilemma in the near future.

Also, I have to agree that people can't really be forced to upgrade until they're good and ready. Ugrading can be a real pain and people who've barely learned to navigate with one browser aren't all that anxious to get something that might work differently. Come to that, I don't have as new a version of IE at home as I do at work, because MS keeps telling me it can't perform the upgrade for some reason, when I try from home with my dial-up connection.

Originally posted by boredboi but just to play safe, i'd stick to making my sites compatible with browsers of version 1 less than the latest browser..

This is what I do also. I figure that if people are using Netscape 2.0, they're seeing problems on other sites as well. I generally design for IE 5.x, NS 4.x, and NS 6.01. They've been out long enough that even the least web-savy person should have one of those. I also think that most HTML that works wih NS 4.x (as much as it complains) probably also works with IE 4.x.

That's interesting. Different people, different points of reference. I think of it in terms of books. You can pick up a book that's a hundred years old and read it. It wouldn't have occurred to me to compare the web to entertainment media. I think of it as an information and communication medium. I think both points of view are right, but it does explain a very different attitude about how it all should be presented and what the priorities should be.

Well, it is but there are others, creole. If I had a 40 year old TV that worked, I could watch all the shows that are on now with it. I could even hook it up to cable. And likewise, those shows will display on the more current technology.

That's a good point, psalzer. I guess my main point is that in various industries, there are certain products and technologies that must move forward, and at some point, they can not account for and ensure compatibility with everything before it.

My personal decision is to move forward, and not code for browsers less than version 4. It's obviously not an industry standard, but my choice.

I target 4.x and up. You simply can't satisfy everyone all the time. Its a personal choice, in my case all the "informational" websites that I develop I stick with a 600 pixel wide format, however, on an e-commerce I go 800x600. The way I figure is if they are surfing on a 14" monitor they are too broke to buy anything anyway.

Personally, I'm a middle aged woman who lives on the web and my TV is only a couple of years old. I was just trying to point out that some technology has grown while remaining backwards compatible to a degree.

Don't be so sure about your demographics, though. I have an 80 year old uncle who browses the web a lot, has more money than most younger people I know, and loves to order things instead of going out to shop for them. Like anyone who was around during the depression, though, he hates waste and would stay with a monitor, TV or any other piece of equipment until it died and then get the next generation. So would a lot of people who don't make their living on the web.

psalzer - I'm afraid you are mistaken. I remember what TVs where like more than 25 years ago - and I can remind you that the quality was cr@p!

Here in Australia the whole nation does nothing else over summer but drink beer and watch the cricket (ok - so I exagerate). Anyway, during the telecast, up in the left-hand corner of the screen are a whole bunch of pertinent stats in little white writing. Now, I'm telling you that 25 years ago - even if they had the technology to keep those stats ticking over - they would have looked like a white smudge on the TV screens I remember watching!

Also, this thread reminds me of a story. About 6/7 years ago I was peddling this multimedia marketing service to property developers and commercial real estate agents. Basically, it was a CD-ROM that was being distributed with a major business magazine at the time. Anyhow, I was in a meeting with someone who had their hands on quite a few marketing dollars at a large property development firm. I went and slipped my CD-ROM into their computer and watched in horror as my beautiful multimedia extraveganza was rendered in 16-colours! Yep - they had a 386 or something with a graphics chip that only supported 16 colours!

So, the bottom line is that you have to draw a line somewhere. You can't be backward compatable to IE1 - (yes, I remember IE1 - it was so bad compared to NN2 which was current at the time). Its a cost/benefit thing. What is the cost of being version 3 compatable compared to what is the cost of losing the 5% of audience/sales because you don't cater to those users (I just plucked 5% out of the air - I don't know the stats).

You're right in your way. But you can use an old TV and you can watch very old things on it. Of course they won't work as well and the old things won't look as good as the new ones.

I can see I'm getting outdated myself. When I got to the web terms like cost/benefit weren't part of the vernacular. The webmaster of the site that got me hooked would make sure that every single person that came to it could access all the important features, no matter what they were using to get there. Some of them were using lynx with shell access. It was a different philosophy. It was about communication.

To me, doing business over the web is not a very interesting part of it. Business is not very interesting to me in general except for some very small businesses. It's just the thing that pays the way for the good stuff. The interesting thing is the ability of anyone to publish on the web and the wealth of information that exists on it. I hate to see any of that information become less accessible because a newer technology won't read it. But I think around here the business end of the web is the one that's the main focus so I guess I'll just shut up now.